Blu-ray Not Gaining Momentum

[Nitemare]

Precisely my point. The fear has always been that they'd cut back the signal to allow for more channels which equals higher advertising revenue.

And people wonder why I won't buy into this? Disposable TVs and crap signal? Yeah, I must be stupid for sticking with SD (which has been plenty good enough for all of my 40 years).... but back OT...

Maybe BluRay is awesomeness personified, but without an HDTV it's useless to me... and the slightly lateral-topic discussion above is why a HUGE number of us won't buy HDTVs or BluRay. No TV, no player.

[stackner]

And people wonder why I won't buy into this? Disposable TVs and crap signal? Yeah, I must be stupid for sticking with SD (which has been plenty good enough for all of my 40 years).... but back OT...

Maybe BluRay is awesomeness personified, but without an HDTV it's useless to me... and the slightly lateral-topic discussion above is why a HUGE number of us won't buy HDTVs or BluRay. No TV, no player.

this is not ment as a go at you even though thats prob how it will be taken. BUT you have just said it there yourself. SD is good enough for YOU. well i am sure you have been happy with improvements in your 40 years.. color tv LOL video tapes then dvds. well now its HDTV. and yes maybe a lot of DVB-HD is not the best but when i watch blu-ray RIPS not even the originals but just rips its a WAY better picture quality than dvd. yes i was quite happy with dvd myself wondering why bother with hd until i went and got a hdtv. there are benfits to having a hd tv with the latest game consoles also. my tv is not BIG either ( 30" widescreen ) but there is a major difference on that when watching blu-ray or blu-ray rips than dvd. your not using a 15" tv? then i could understand the picture looking fine LOL

owell some will stay holding onto the old stuff they know how to use like my brother inlaw that only recently got a dvd player.

[Nitemare]

I'm not taking it as a jab at me. I was just pointing out that there are reasons other than ignorance or economic for not making the switch. GOOD reasons.

Believe me... a HDTV is like #4 on my list of things to get if I ever come up with any disposable cash. Maybe after the kids move out...

[donschjr]

It will be a long time before I even own a HDTV let alone a blu-ray player and I know many people that feel the same. I only replace tv's when they quit working and I don't see that happening for quite a while.

[edDV]

It will be a long time before I even own a HDTV let alone a blu-ray player and I know many people that feel the same. I only replace tv's when they quit working and I don't see that happening for quite a while.

I'm still holding off on Blu-Ray but I'm sold on HD for larger TV sets.

You can apply the same philisophy to cars. A 1997 Honda Civic is as much car as anyone should need?

[orsetto]

Don't forget that our precious huge flat-screen displays are actually *crap*, which is why they practically require full-bore HD sources to even watch without a headache. Standard DVD actually looked pretty damned spectacular on large 32" CRT sets or good-quality projectors. Its the fixed-in-stone, inflexible, "up yours" resolution limitations of current flat panels that make standard-def look like crap and BluRay viable. If you could go to Best Buy today and affordably pick up a 42" OLED display with its vastly better contrast and other imaging improvements, "ordinary" upscaled DVD would look fantastic.

But thats a long way off. Until then, our Jetsons-inspired "hang on the wall" money pits are useful for sports broadcasts, HBO-HD and little else. Oh yeah, maybe BluRay.

[Nitemare]

From the discussion (pro or con) it seems as though the biggest mistake BluRay made was linking its success to HDTV sales, which have gained some momentum but clearly aren't accepted on a massive scale.

I shudder to think this way, but IF I could buy a BluRay disc with... say... a trilogy of DVD quality movies on it, then I could actually use the thing on an SDTV.

This is a bad idea... HD or DVD quality releases of the same films? (shudder) Still... if lack of HDTV sales is what's holding them back then maybe they should start looking into other markets.

[ricoman]

edDV and anyone that's interested:

a $100 bluray player:

http://www.nfm.com/DetailsPage.aspx?ProductID=29419116

[SCDVD]

edDV and anyone that's interested:

a $100 bluray player:

http://www.nfm.com/DetailsPage.aspx?ProductID=29419116

I assume you mean this link. Your link goes to the home page.

http://www.nfm.com/DetailsPage.ASPX?LVL1=ELECTRONICS&lvl2=Video&lvl3=All&lvl4=DVD%20Pl...uctID=29419116

[SingSing]

Look like it is a trend to dump those unsold bluRay players to furniture stores. This furniture store offers free BluRay player.

http://www.jordans.com/blu-ray/

Soon, the BluRay players will be integrated into your bunk beds, and night stands. What about Toilet bowl, any one !
Does this means Sony lose the VH$ war, and win the Dog Pile of the HD format war?

[ricoman]

edDV and anyone that's interested:

a $100 bluray player:

http://www.nfm.com/DetailsPage.aspx?ProductID=29419116

I assume you mean this link. Your link goes to the home page.

http://www.nfm.com/DetailsPage.ASPX?LVL1=ELECTRONICS&lvl2=Video&lvl3=All&lvl4=DVD%20Pl...uctID=29419116

When I click my link it goes directly to the Memorex BD player, not to the home page. I don't know why it acts differently for you. Try it again, I just did 3 times and it went to the player every time.

[yoda313]

I do own some of the same movies on dvd and then on hd-dvd or bluray. Whenever I do a one after the other comparison the hd version wins hands down.

The upconverted dvds look good don't get me wrong. It's just that compared to watching the same movie in a hd format the sharpness and that extra little "sparkle" isn't there on the sd dvd. And this is even on a simple 1366x768 lcd 32" screen. I can tell the difference even on that size of a set. And yes I've done this on the same player - my ps3 connected via hdmi (well audio is outputted via fiber optic but that doesn't impact the visuals at all).

[ricoman]

No one is arguing that there is a difference. With some movies it is a great difference, others not to great. The good ones are fantastic, I've had a 50" Sony HDTV for more than 3 yrs. now and I still say Wow! sometimes, especially outdoors scenery, but I have had a few movies that were not much better than SD DVDs, hardly worth the extra money. Check out:
http://www.highdefdigest.com/ and click reviews, you'll see that video quality varies greatly from movie to movie.

[wulf109]

I bought my first HD TV a year ago. The first thing I did was upgrade my satelite service to HD,amazing improvement. Then I bought an HD-DVD player on closeout to upconvert my SD DVD's. They looked so good I started buying HD-DVD at bargain prices. Realized I made a mistake when I bought a 720P LCD and I bought A Toshiba 1080P LCD,amazing improvement. Now I bought a Sony BlueRay player. I've always been a techno-junkie,I'm hooked on HD. The conversion in February to HD over the air broadcasting I think will cause many people to make the move to HD TV and that will wet their appetite more HD. The spread of HD TV in the next few years will I suspect help Blueray survive. Sony announced a 1 billion dollar loss for the current year. I wonder how of that is Blueray/PS3 related. The real fly in the ointment is the lousy economy,I think we're headed for a depression. We make nothing and we owe are soul to the Communist Chinese,yes they are communists.

[samijubal]

Don't forget that our precious huge flat-screen displays are actually *crap*, which is why they practically require full-bore HD sources to even watch without a headache. Standard DVD actually looked pretty damned spectacular on large 32" CRT sets or good-quality projectors. Its the fixed-in-stone, inflexible, "up yours" resolution limitations of current flat panels that make standard-def look like crap and BluRay viable.

I don't know what kind of lousy TVs you're watching. My Panny plasma definitely isn't crap. New anamorphic DVDs look amazing with just a standard player and the TV's upconversion. Far better than any SDTV I've seen and I've only owned high end TVs.

Do you have any idea how bad a 50" CRT TV would look? With all CRT's convergence, geometry, overscan, linearity issues, just to name a few, that would truly look like crap.

[Chopmeister]

I always find it remarkable how many idiots truly think an upconverting DVD player playing a DVD is competition for a Blu Ray based movie. I also find that "those people" are usually (a) over 50 years old or (b) too poor to afford to buy a new TV except once a decade.

Most of those aren't connected or set properly for HD and are clueless that they have AC3 audio. The cable installers seem near equally clueless.

I beg to disagree:
- I'm not over 50 (in fact, not even 40 yet )
- I buy a TV more often than every 10 years - and own multiple good TVs and DVD recorders
- I can afford a proper HD TV, in fact, I have one (full HD, top of range)
- I am well aware that I have AC3 sound and what it is
- I cabled it myself (HDMI to TV, optical to amp etc) and I assure you it is cabled "just fine"

SO there is no need to insult people who don't agree with you, and imply they are elderly imbeciles.

I don't have blu-ray (yet). The main obstacle where I live is not the cost of the players - I couldn't care less about a measly $50-100 cost difference for a good player. It is the cost & availability of titles, and the absence of recordability. Things are doubtless better in the US but here pretty much all blu-ray titles go for $NZ 50 (well $49.95 if you want to split hairs, $1NZ = more or less US 60 cents), the availability of titles is very very limited compared to DVD, and while DVD recorders are plentiful blu-ray recorders are absent from the market. Add to that the fact that unlike DVD I can't buy a zone free blu-ray player, or a North AMerican zoned one, so I can't order from Amazon to take advantage of US prices and title range. Plus I am north of 1,500 DVDs (some bought, some recorded off cable, all legit)

I have a good top of range upscaling DVD recorderUpscaled DVDs look great on my system. I have tested blu-ray and it looks slightly better, but not jaw droppingly so. At the moment I am happy with DVD and sticking with it. When title ranges expand, prices drop, recordable blu-ray boxes become readily available and other zones can be played (or I get a North American box and just flag the New Zealand zone option, buying exclusively offshore) then I will sit tight. I can easily afford the hardware I want, it just isn't available. When it is, I will get it. Until then, the quality difference isn't enough to worry me.

[edDV]

I always find it remarkable how many idiots truly think an upconverting DVD player playing a DVD is competition for a Blu Ray based movie. I also find that "those people" are usually (a) over 50 years old or (b) too poor to afford to buy a new TV except once a decade.

Most of those aren't connected or set properly for HD and are clueless that they have AC3 audio. The cable installers seem near equally clueless.

I beg to disagree:
- I'm not over 50 (in fact, not even 40 yet )
- I buy a TV more often than every 10 years - and own multiple good TVs and DVD recorders
- I can afford a proper HD TV, in fact, I have one (full HD, top of range)
- I am well aware that I have AC3 sound and what it is
- I cabled it myself (HDMI to TV, optical to amp etc) and I assure you it is cabled "just fine"

SO there is no need to insult people who don't agree with you, and imply they are elderly imbeciles.

I don't have blu-ray (yet). The main obstacle where I live is not the cost of the players - I couldn't care less about a measly $50-100 cost difference for a good player. It is the cost & availability of titles, and the absence of recordability. Things are doubtless better in the US but here pretty much all blu-ray titles go for $NZ 50 (well $49.95 if you want to split hairs, $1NZ = more or less US 60 cents), the availability of titles is very very limited compared to DVD, and while DVD recorders are plentiful blu-ray recorders are absent from the market. Add to that the fact that unlike DVD I can't buy a zone free blu-ray player, or a North AMerican zoned one, so I can't order from Amazon to take advantage of US prices and title range. Plus I am north of 1,500 DVDs (some bought, some recorded off cable, all legit)

I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about the typical house I enter here. Very few are connected to receive the best picture or sound. A typical complaint is they can't hear the voices over the music. Then you see they lack a center channel speaker.

I share your reservations about Blu-Ray. We don't have recorders here either so must make our own from camcorder recordings or tuner captures. Prerecorded media prices are coming down but are still well above DVD. The one major advantage we have is ability to rent Blu-Ray discs in a store or by mail.

I've managed to avoid buying a Blu-Ray player to date. I'll get one eventually. No hurry.

I have a good top of range upscaling DVD recorderUpscaled DVDs look great on my system. I have tested blu-ray and it looks slightly better, but not jaw droppingly so. At the moment I am happy with DVD and sticking with it. When title ranges expand, prices drop, recordable blu-ray boxes become readily available and other zones can be played (or I get a North American box and just flag the New Zealand zone option, buying exclusively offshore) then I will sit tight. I can easily afford the hardware I want, it just isn't available. When it is, I will get it. Until then, the quality difference isn't enough to worry me.

I agree with you on the pricing and region issues. I'm aware of the quality advantage of Blu-Ray but I'm in no hurry to buy a player. Netflix will have all these same movies later when I have time to enjoy them.

[usually_quiet]

Just callin' it like I see it. I'm sure more than a few people clung to their VHS players (& tapes) for a long time after DVDs made their debut. It takes a lot to bring these people to their senses.

I do believe that many people can be turned to the dark side (of BD & HDTV), but they take a while. My father, for example, "didn't need" HDTV for years... now, just try and pry it away from him.

Most of this will be moot in time. People have little choice BUT HDTV's these days, cable and other providers are adding HD options constantly. Once people get used to the quality of a good HD signal, going back to SD and DVD will be hard to do -- ESPECIALLY on new purchases.

Hoping and praying for the demise of BD (& in many cases, HD in general) so you can feel better about yourself for ignoring it is what makes 'those people' idiots, IMNSHO.

OK, so how do you explain the popularity of Zunes, iPods, PDAs, cell phones, and other hi-tech portable devices that allow the young, wealthy, and technologically sophisticated to watch poor-quality video sources on a tiny screen with no surround sound? I'd say it proves that a significant segment of the population, both young and old, finds that having the best quality video and audio possible is just not critical to their enjoyment of whatever they are watching.

Also, there are reasons other than financial need or ignorance that cause people to keep things that are outdated. Some people don't get rid of things until they wear out for philosophical reasons -- they consider thrift to be a virtue, or they believe it is the only socially responsible choice in a world with dwindling natural reasouces.

Given the current economic uncertainty, I'm sure many will delay the purchase of full-HD TVs and Blu-Ray players indefinitely. Even if they have the money right now, they are worried about what the future may hold. The fact that most of what is avaliable on cable or OTA happens to be bitrate-starved SD content doesn't make the purchase of a full-HD TV at today's premium prices seem terribly necessary at the moment. Cable providers may be adding HD content, but there again many will feel that adding 20% or more to their cable bill to see it is something they can put off for now.

[yoda313]

OK, so how do you explain the popularity of Zunes, iPods, PDAs, cell phones, and other hi-tech portable devices that allow the young, wealthy, and technologically sophisticated to watch poor-quality video sources on a tiny screen with no surround sound?

I hate to say it but those are not mutually exclusive.

I have a Zune and I have a bluray player. I know that the zune is only 320x240 and stereo only but I did not buy it for high def video. I bought it for portable video and audio capabilities. They are two seperate things.

I think the same can be said for mp3's versus cds in terms of quality. Though of course with huge capacities these days lossless codecs are becoming much more plausible mp3's allow entire music collections to be taken on the road.

I'd say for home use for best quality I'd pull out the original cd - unless it was a purchased/rented download of course.

BUT I do understand what you are getting at usually_quiet. I just don't want to be lumped into the same group that you're implying with a general statement. For me portable players are for convenience, not for the best visual quality - though of course you don't have to have a 1920x1080 resolution on a 3 inch screen for decent quality - so in that sense it would definitely be overkill.

[usually_quiet]

BUT I do understand what you are getting at usually_quiet. I just don't want to be lumped into the same group that you're implying with a general statement. For me portable players are for convenience, not for the best visual quality - though of course you don't have to have a 1920x1080 resolution on a 3 inch screen for decent quality - so in that sense it would definitely be overkill.

To be honest, I would rather do without than voluntarily watch video on a screen that small or low resolution for entertainment purposes, and I only have small SD TVs. Yet you tolerate less tham SD resolution for the sake of portability. There are slightly larger devices such as the Archos 5, that offer SD or better resolution and larger screens, which are still quite portable, though they do cost more. If better quality is available in a highly portable player, why aren't you using one of those? The Zune is good enough?

I haven't seen many comments where the authors say they can't see a difference between SD and HD, just that the difference isn't enough to justify the additional cost.

[orsetto]

Many of us find the Archos units a giant pain to deal with, and the ones with larger screens are much bigger than a Zune or iPod. If your goal is a tiny entertainment system with long battery life and decent capacity, the Zune or iPod wins. I use a second-gen video iPod, and let me tell you I enjoy the hell out of it: the little screen is sharp as a tack with superb contrast and color. With the added sound depth provided by earphone isolation, its in some ways a deeper experience than watching on a TV: great for drama series and the like. I get a kick out of carrying four or five entire seasons of shows in my pocket. But would I use it for a good recent theatrical movie I've never seen before? No. Thats a different animal and I'd want the bigger-screen feel. The whole portable tangent is apples and oranges to the original BluRay question: even questionable SD content looks really punchy and enjoyable on a 2.5 inch iPod screen. I don't think anyone disagrees an improved disc for HD was a good idea, its more that a lot of people hate the BluRay version of that idea.

[web_maven]

People talk about how BlueRay is doing great! The Dark knight sold 1,700,000 copies, read the article DVD sold 12,000,000 copies. BlueRay has a long road but the road has a road block. Netflix is offering the ability to watch movies on the Netflix player, XBOX, and LG HD TV's (I am sure PS3 and Wii will get this ability too) Netflix offers video in HD and they look great. I can watch as many as I want and select from my queue, BlueRay will never be able to touch this. In addition the Netflix player cost $99.00 which includes unlimited movie watching.

ON-Demand video will beat BlueRay, ON-Demand can offer New movies without the trouble of spending $60.00 for a BR disk. And if the technology changes it's easy to update the players. I use my XBOX the watch Netflix and if I wanted I could rent new HD videos with XBOX Live, I don't need a BR player. I am very happy with DVD and I know the argument that the quality is so much better.

There are many factors that go into buying new technology. The first one is money, I have far better things to do with my money then spend it on tech stuff (I much rather spend the money on my kids) If I do buy the tech stuff I make sure it's going to last because I am not going to buy a new one until it breaks. Then it comes down to my wife I have to make it so she can turn it on with out having to turn on 5 different devices. I don't believe I am alone in this I would guess most people would want the new tech stuff but it's not a priority which is why DVD out sold BR by almost 6 to 1. DVD is cheap (Both the player and the videos) its easy to connect and the most important issue is that most people do not have HD TV's. If everyone had an HDTV BR may do better but people don't, which is why the government is offering the $40 coupon for a converter box.

I am not sure why people get so upset when others talk about what they feel is a bad or dying technology. You know that once you make that tech purchase the clock is ticking and the technology is already on it's way out, some just go out quicker then others.

[Rynoc]

I agree with the post that HD was a format that nobody wanted. In fact most people are very happy just having EDTV unless it causes blocking on their newly purchased LCD HDTV.

Now I like having the higher resolution formats but they are too wieldy and difficult to use due to DRM. Compatibility and consistency is a real problem here and it varies widely DVD to DVD. They extra format also comes with a price with movie studios trying to force more unwanted previews on you increasing the time from disk in player to starting the movie. I hated that in DVD's and it is murder on Blue-Ray. I have a total of 6 Blue-Ray disks and will probably not purchase anymore. I do still buy DVD's but encode and install them onto my HTPC library. As Netflix continues to add more streaming content...my buying habits will change and I will fully move away from DVDs.

It is my opinion is that Blue-Ray as an entertainment format will die a slow death over the next 3 years. The only thing keeping it alive today is DRM, Studio support, and the fact that the manufacturing base is all discs today. DVD's would likely die off as well but due to the legacy we have with them, they will be around much longer. The technologies that are replacing them will be a combination of flash drives and downloadable content. Flash drives are already getting cheap enough, integrated many TV's already with USB support, small and compact, and fast enough to handle the data rates. All we need is a distributer to embrace them for any platform. Already you see this adoption with the new generation of mp3 and video players...some capable of HD playback. My daughter has all her DVD's now on her little 8G MP3 player and takes it to friends houses to play on their TV's. Downloadable content libraries (on demand service) also cannot be beat and streaming is fast enough now over DSL that it makes 720p content a reality today which looks good on most sets.

I'm not exactly new to this as a consumer, been playing with HD media since 2003 and my main TV is on a 6 ft by 9ft screen using a 1080p projector. I own a PS3 I use as a blue ray player, Wii, and a standard XBOX running XBMC. I use internet streaming protocal through programs like Playon to access Hulu and Netflix online content which works on both my PS3 and XBOX through XBMC. My local content is either direct or streamed through Tversity. I also record alot of TV OTA feeds and have a large digital library.

My personal opinion is that 1080p format on Blue Ray is pretty, but I am more happy with a large library of shows at EDTV formats. My projector is more tolerant of format conversion due to the optics than say a LCD / Plasma TV, and there is really not that much of a noticible impact on a moving picture. Yes, if you view it side by side or watch a slow moving nature film, it is like eye candy and I wont argue that it is a must have for sports broadcasts (which fits the latter). Frankly for movies and TV though...very few people actually notice or care. I initially I found mind boggling but starting to join them. Those are the people that make up over 98% of the TV watching public.

[orsetto]

BTW, studio content downloaded to SD cards is about to explode, big time. The contracts have all been signed, with Toshiba spearheading the effort. This has come down WAY quicker than we expected: I can't believe they all reached consensus so fast! The studios apparently don't want to be caught behind the curve like they were with audio developments. The idea is mfrs can easily fit an SD reader into almost anything, from cell phones to the next iPods (although Apples pigheadedness will likely kill that idea). Netflix is already planning to have their VOD box work with this system, and many others are following suit. Retail kiosks are also being sent to stores right now for testing. Initially you'll have to put your order in with a clerk but self-serve kiosks are being planned for later. Should be interesting to watch how this impacts the various disc formats over the next couple years.

[loughary]

It's real simple some people care about watching video in a higher res some don't... all I know is once I watched something in HD...I don't care if it was bad HD I'll take it over SD and DVD any day.

I will agree that HDDVD was a lot quicker at loading then Blu-ray.

[yoda313]

Many of us find the Archos units a giant pain to deal with, and the ones with larger screens are much bigger than a Zune or iPod. If your goal is a tiny entertainment system with long battery life and decent capacity, the Zune or iPod wins.

I've never owned an archos but I think its two parts to that statement - the physical size of the unit AND cost. I'm not sure what the cheapest new price of an archos was but my Zune was 250.00 for 30gb new in early 2008. That was what I was willing to pay for and the size was just what I was looking for as well.

Plus with portable electronics there is a certain point where bigger isn't better because you want it to be small enough for lugging around.

[usually_quiet]

The dimensions for the Archos 5 player are approx 5.02" (127.5 mm) x 3.1" (78.3 mm) x .51" (12.9 mm) 8.8 oz (250gr) for the 60GB* version. The 120 GB and 250 GB models are thicker (.76" or 19.4 mm) and heavier (10.6 oz. or 300 gr).

The dimensions iPod classic are: Height: 4.1 inches (103.5 mm) Width: 2.4 inches (61.8 mm) Depth: 0.41 inch (10.5 mm) Weight: 4.9 ounces (140 grams).

The iPod Classic is 20% smaller in every dimension and half the weight of the Archos 5, but the Archos 5 would still fit easily in a briefcase or most handbags, and the screen is almost twice as big with 800x480 resolution. If the video player has to be carried around in a pocket, I guess the iPod and Zune win, but not everyone would need that for portability.

I might find the Archos 5's 4.8 inch screen to be barely watchable. A 2.5-inch screen? No, not for me. Not even with reading glasses. Not even if it was a TV show I had seen before. ...eye strain, ouch!

[yoda313]

@usually_quiet - I guess my thing is that when you go beyond 3-4 inches you might as well use a fully functional portable dvd player as opposed to a portable media player. To me the handheld nature of a zune or even a, ack can't say it... even an IPOD... is more convenient than a larger screen which means more bulk and weight.

Now do remember that I'm not talking about watching an entire 2 hour movie straight through on something this small. It's usually more like half hour tv shows or parts of movies. This is to stave off boredom in unusual places - not to get wrapped up in an action or drama movie.

[DereX888]

Porn in HD is... how shall I say it... very unaesthetic? and certainly it is just plain "ewww!" on the close-ups...
*That* might be one of the reasons for slow HD adoption among masses, no?


(oh and who cares about few SE movie versions available on BR only nowadays - these are not going to change anything, there are very few people even among movie collectors who'd buy 100th version of the same flick just because it has 2.5sec of previously unseen, restored footage...)